httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: [mod_proxy] Help offered
Date Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:22:37 GMT
"Theo E. Schlossnagle" wrote:

> What you say is deceiving.  Squid is much more effecient for high volume
> proxying than Apache 1.3.x.

Very likely - but the point behind putting a mod_proxy Apache in front
of a website is to make a complex website manageable, it had nothing to
do with performance.

The killer app for us was to allow Windows based ASP sites to coexist in
the same URL space as Netscape Enterprise server sites, and the same URL
space as static content. It allowed us to get rid of the awful and
enormously irritating prefixes in front of many of the website URLs, and
allowed us to define a workable URL strategy that was not tied in any
way to webserver architecture.

> Most big sites that _really_ need something like this, just make these changes
> to suit their needs.

In our case we were a big site, and we did make changes to suit our
needs - however Squid had nothing close to the features we needed. We
needed a webserver to front our websites, not a proxy.

> Squid's purpose in life it to be transparent.  So, you do loose some features
> like being able to use mod_rewrite to "glue" several backend machines together
> into a unified namespace on the front.  Hacking mod_rewrite functionality into
> Squid is a much harder problem IMHO.

Exactly - which is why we didn't use it.


View raw message